Re: VW (was: Digest 2 Apr)

CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU writes:
>...and, of course, this all assumes that Latin v (or more strictly,
>consonantal {u}) was pronounced [w].  Unless one has a time machine, this
>is unprovable.  We can be fairly certain, I think, that it was a labial
>approximant of some sort; but whether it was the bilabial [w] of British &
>American English, or the labio-dental (denoted rather oddly IMO as [P] in
>SAMPA, a stylized lower case upsilon in real IPA) of Indian
>sub-continental
>English, we simply do not - and cannot - know.

Naturally i have to plug my conlang here ;).

In Montreiano, /B/  becomes closer to /w/ when between vowels:

cabo > cauo: /kawo/